Question For Blix

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As far as tort reform goes, I'd be in favor of putting a cap on punitive damages. The amount of rewards are incredibly out of check right now.

 

As far as class-action suits, I'm not decided on it. Something obviously has to be done, but I'm not well versed enough about it to lend a valid opinion on it. Loser pays system doesn't make too much sense, IMO.

 

As far as the budget goes, we could balance it by simply eliminating Bush's idiot tax cut. It would save us trillions of dollars. I wouldn't be in favor of CUTTING the military, per se, but I wouldn't be in favor of increasing the spending ridiculously either.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

As far as tort reform goes, I'd be in favor of putting a cap on punitive damages. The amount of rewards are incredibly out of check right now.

 

As far as class-action suits, I'm not decided on it. Something obviously has to be done, but I'm not well versed enough about it to lend a valid opinion on it. Loser pays system doesn't make too much sense, IMO.

 

As far as the budget goes, we could balance it by simply eliminating Bush's idiot tax cut. It would save us trillions of dollars. I wouldn't be in favor of CUTTING the military, per se, but I wouldn't be in favor of increasing the spending ridiculously either.

1) Bush's tax cut isn't even worth $1 trillion, much less multiple.

 

2) Tax cuts ALWAYS generate more tax revenue. This happens without fail.

 

As for class action suits, I do not understand the logic behind them. The judgments end up leaving the plaintiffs with very little money each, but it does give the lawyers some ungodly large money.

 

And loser pays would severely lower the nuisance suits that fill up courts --- a major problem.

-=Mike

[Guest Mad Dog]

The loser pays would be the best system to have.

 

Why are you going to sue someone over a tiny little thing when you might have to pay for all the court costs.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The thing about class-action suits is that they serve the purpose of punishing the offending company. The lawyers, perhaps, should have a cap on the money they're allowed to recieve.

 

The tax cut, actually, has played the largest role in costing us $5.3 trillion in estimated surplus (which, we know, is now a deficit), as reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' article "Why the Surplus Has Disappeared", which studies Congressional Budget Office data. This was a report on 8/29/02, if you wish to confirm the source. Perhaps I misspoke if you derived a per annum figure from what I said, but it will cost us trillions in the long run.

 

My solution is to eliminate those tax cuts. I'm not conservative in my tax beliefs.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The thing about class-action suits is that they serve the purpose of punishing the offending company. The lawyers, perhaps, should have a cap on the money they're allowed to recieve.

 

The tax cut, actually, has played the largest role in costing us $5.3 trillion in estimated surplus (which, we know, is now a deficit), as reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' article "Why the Surplus Has Disappeared", which studies Congressional Budget Office data. This was a report on 8/29/02, if you wish to confirm the source. Perhaps I misspoke if you derived a per annum figure from what I said, but it will cost us trillions in the long run.

 

My solution is to eliminate those tax cuts. I'm not conservative in my tax beliefs.

Tax cuts lead to higher revenues.

 

The CBO is using the mistaken theory of static economy. It says "Well, we had $6M heading in, he cut $5M in taxes, so we must ONLY have $1M heading in now."

 

They fail --- as per usual --- to take into account GROWTH caused by tax cuts.

 

Using their economic model, lowering prices would be the WORST possible way for a retail corporation to make any money, as opposed to the BEST way.

-=Mike --- the economy is NOT a zero-sum game.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm not sure I understand how you can get more taxes out of cutting them. Are you insinuating the higher earners will disclose more of their incomes (i.e. the money in the Caymans and whatnot) because taxes are lowered?

 

How do you assume they will get more revenue by cutting taxes? You're eliminating a lot of the revenue of higher-earners' taxes. If you're using trickle-down economics as your basis for argument there, I quite simply and catergorically disagree that it brings in more revenue for the government. It doesn't create jobs as it's supposed to; comparing the Bush-Reagan 12 years to Clinton's proves that.

[Guest Mad Dog]

You earn the taxes back in other ways. When people have more money they spend it and you earn more taxes through sales tax and corporate tax.

 

Also if companies are making more they'll pay workers more and there's more income to tax.

[Guest DrTom]

The thing about class-action suits is that they serve the purpose of punishing the offending company. The lawyers, perhaps, should have a cap on the money they're allowed to recieve.

I'd lobe to see something like that, but then you have the problem of the government telling someone how much they can and can't make. I doubt it would be hard for a lawyer to argue that as restraint of trade and get it thrown out on those grounds.

 

Class-action suits definitely don't work, though, since the plaintiffs end up with a few hundred dollars each -- maybe a couple thou if they're lucky -- while the lawyers wipe their asses with $100 bills after celebrating with caviar and champagne. There should be a way for consumers to go after companies without the risk of losing their money to lawyers. As much as I'm loath to bring government intervention into things, but maybe the FTC or another body could investigate the complaints and assess both compensatory and punitive damages.

 

I'm all in favor of the English rule (loser pays), though. The Republicans tries to get that passed in 1994, but they were rebuffed. I doubt it would meet any more success today, really.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Have you?

 

1441 also requires a reconvening of the security council to authorize force, and a report from Hans Blix stating that Saddam refuses to disarm.

We tried to do that but countries such as Germany, Russia, and China said they wouldn't support any use of force, despite saying it explicitly and implicitly in their unanimous vote for 1441. France said they would veto anything put on the table. Who is UN-diplomatic?

 

Neither have happened, and Saddam has been disarming (however slowly and however much against his will.)

Neither have happened because the UN won't back up its resolutions with the threat of force. Again, 1441 does not plainly state Saddam has to disarm. He needed to disarm immediately, completely, and unconditionally. Do you honestly think he did this?

 

Furthermore, the weapons inspectors themselves stated they could have this finished within months without resorting to a war, the singlemost destructive act humanity has learnt to perform, if they were given more power and were allowed to continue their jobs.

Of course they would say that. They'd take their few months, submit a report just like the last two Blix ones that Iraq was not disarming but the inspections needed more time, and the UN would go along with it.

 

Save the bleeding-heart war stuff, everybody knows what war is. However it is necessary.

 

Again, do you understand what the inspectors' jobs are? To oversee disarmament, and NOT to search out WMD.

 

So which would you have preferred? Shouldn't we at least have tried to resolve this diplomatically instead of rushing in like fools to spur on more terrorist attacks?

Rushing in like fools? You can't be serious. The previous two administrations have given Iraq 12 years of diplomacy. A vote on a resolution requiring Saddam to disarm immediately took place months ago. What he's done can never be called immediate, shit... it's not disarmament. Bush tried to go for diplomacy, but was cut off by Germany and Russia saying they would never support force and France saying they would veto anything put on the table.

 

And don't try the 'Saddam's had 12 years to disarm' shit.

Why not? It's a valid argument.

 

In those twelve years he's had his weapons programs dismantled or made entirely untenable and he's had to give up tons of weaponry. He has been entirely contained, and now we're about to unleash him and his weapons so that we can do what, make him disarm faster?

We're about to unleash Saddam and what weapons? I thought his weapons programs were dismantled or made entirely untenable. I thought he's given up tons of weaponry.

 

And yes the whole IDEA is immediate disarmament... is there anything faster than immediate?

 

 

 

It says "Well, we had $6M heading in, he cut $5M in taxes, so we must ONLY have $1M heading in now."

This kind of thing is exactly like the Democrats saying "Well, we've lost $2M in Medicare spending because the Bush administration promised $6M but we're only getting $4M." These kinds of figures base everything on potential money not loss or gain of actual money.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Except that's not what we argue about, Spicy, unless the amount it is raised doesn't even remotely match up with inflation.

 

We talk about... imagine this... when they CUT OR FREEZE SPENDING ON SUCH PROGRAMS!

 

And hey, there's nothing like saying "THROWING MORE MONEY INTO (insert program here) NEVER WORKS!!!!" and then throwing $40 billlion extra into defense.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm not sure I understand how you can get more taxes out of cutting them. Are you insinuating the higher earners will disclose more of their incomes (i.e. the money in the Caymans and whatnot) because taxes are lowered?

 

How do you assume they will get more revenue by cutting taxes? You're eliminating a lot of the revenue of higher-earners' taxes. If you're using trickle-down economics as your basis for argument there, I quite simply and catergorically disagree that it brings in more revenue for the government. It doesn't create jobs as it's supposed to; comparing the Bush-Reagan 12 years to Clinton's proves that.

How can one cut taxes and get higher revenues?

 

OK, here goes:

 

1) Cut capital gains taxes.

2) Investment in businesses increases.

3) Businesses hire more employees because they have more money.

4) More employees = more taxes.

 

And, voila, higher revenues.

 

No different than cutting costs in a store to increase a store's profitability.

 

This is all based on the Laffer Curve. This theory states that at the two extremes (0% taxation and 100% taxation), tax revenue will be identical --- namely, $0.

 

So, revenue must be traced on a parabola (or is it a hyperbola) and not on a straight line.

 

Reagan's 8 years were BETTER than Clinton's, considering that he took an economy over that was in MUCH worse shape and created a non-stop 8 or so year growth spurt. Tax revenues DOUBLED (look up the numbers) under Reagan.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As I noted in another thread, Reagan-Bush's 12 years created significantly LESS jobs, under trickle down economics, than Clinton's 8 years.

 

I also dissent that the it was a non-stop 8 year spurt. It was a good economy, no doubt, but it wasn't as if this was even close to the economic prosperity enjoyed under Clinton. Clinton didn't exactly inherit a huge winner, either, though. Bush's last two years had a wonderfully stagnant economy which was bogged down by Reagan's "contributions" to the national debt.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

As I noted in another thread, Reagan-Bush's 12 years created significantly LESS jobs, under trickle down economics, than Clinton's 8 years.

 

I also dissent that the it was a non-stop 8 year spurt. It was a good economy, no doubt, but it wasn't as if this was even close to the economic prosperity enjoyed under Clinton. Clinton didn't exactly inherit a huge winner, either, though. Bush's last two years had a wonderfully stagnant economy which was bogged down by Reagan's "contributions" to the national debt.

The economy grew at a 4% clip in 1992. There was single digit inflation AND unemployment (heck, until Carter, people assumed rampant inflation AND unemployment weren't possible --- give it up to one of the less deserving Nobel Peace Prize winners for disproving conventional economic wisdom).

 

Reagan got NONE of that when he took office.

 

His performance was infinitely better --- of course, that is why Reagan will go down as one of the great Presidents while Clinton will go down as a "What the heck were we thinking?" President.

-=Mike

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Reagan's going to go down as a great president? I mean, he was a nice guy and all, but what did he really do that would rank him among the greats?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Reagan's going to go down as a great president? I mean, he was a nice guy and all, but what did he really do that would rank him among the greats?

Restored the economy was the debacle of the 70's? What Clinton inherited doesn't APPROACH what Reagan inherited. No President since FDR inherited an economy as weak as Reagan inherited.

 

Ended the Cold War? When he took office, people assumed the USSR would never go away. He faced them down and drove them to spend themselves into oblivion.

 

Anything else?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

while Clinton will go down as a "What the heck were we thinking?" President.

 

...the hell are you talking about?

 

He had one of, if not the, strongest economy in American history under his command. He put together a great team of economic advisors and did a great job on the home-front. Perhaps he didn't nuke and invade the entire Middle East like you may want, but he sure as hell wasn't a weak president.

 

I think you need to stop listening to Rush for a second and actually think.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

He most definitely DIDN'T end the Cold War.

 

Russia did by practically bankrupting their country. Of course, I'm SURE Reagan can take credit for that, right?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Reagan's going to go down as a great president? I mean, he was a nice guy and all, but what did he really do that would rank him among the greats?

Restored the economy was the debacle of the 70's? What Clinton inherited doesn't APPROACH what Reagan inherited. No President since FDR inherited an economy as weak as Reagan inherited.

 

Ended the Cold War? When he took office, people assumed the USSR would never go away. He faced them down and drove them to spend themselves into oblivion.

 

Anything else?

-=Mike

Okay, so we had a good stretch until the 70s. Keep in mind that 1970-1977 was Nixonian stuff at work.

 

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was obvious that the Soviets were doomed to failure, Reagan just happened to be in office when they fell apart. They could have very well disintegrated at any point after the Nixon administration after Breshnev was shown to be another Premier who would back down from America and accept the easy way out. Speaking of spending ourselves into oblivion, which president drove us into the massive debt that we never were fiscally able to recoup until the late 90s?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Speaking of spending ourselves into oblivion, which president drove us into the massive debt that we never were fiscally able to recoup until the late 90s?

 

TEST:

 

A. Reagan

B. Clinton

C. LIBRELZ

 

Answer?

[Guest JMA]

Hasn't there been more job growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents? The GOP had THE greatest President ever (IMO) with Abe Lincoln, but they've all been downhill from him.

[Guest DrTom]

Hasn't there been more job growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents?

That's something that would take a LONG time to look up, and probably require a lot of conversions to modern dollars, allowances for war, etc etc.

 

(Edit: Well shit, you said "job growth," not "economic growth," like I somehow misread. Um... that would still take a while to look up, and stuff.)

 

Reagan had the longest period of peacetime economic growth in US history... until Clinton, who eclipsed him by three months, I think. It's also very true, however, that Reagan inherited a shambles of an ecomony, known for its "stagflation" and high misery index, while Clinton inherited an economy that was two quarters on the rebound from its recession. Both eras were successful ones, but I have to say Reagan's looks more impressive, simply because of the situation when he took over.

[Guest Mad Dog]

It was also getting ready for the downfall under Clinton too.

 

Most people saw it coming for several years.

[Guest Vyce]

I'm obviously not qualified to discuss the economic stuff.

 

I just find it absolutely hilarious that Tyler bitched at me in another post for "attacking" someone's ideology, when he openly and unashamedly does so to Mike here.

 

I LOVE hypocrites.

[The Robfather 0]

If a family member of your's was kidnapped, a sister or daughter perhaps, would you want Blix heading up the investigation to find her?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I just find it absolutely hilarious that Tyler bitched at me in another post for "attacking" someone's ideology, when he openly and unashamedly does so to Mike here.

 

Did I say Mike is jumping in joy at the fact people are dying?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Reagan had the longest period of peacetime economic growth in US history... until Clinton, who eclipsed him by three months, I think. It's also very true, however, that Reagan inherited a shambles of an ecomony, known for its "stagflation" and high misery index, while Clinton inherited an economy that was two quarters on the rebound from its recession. Both eras were successful ones, but I have to say Reagan's looks more impressive, simply because of the situation when he took over.

 

Fair enough, Tom.

 

I would have to add, though, that Reagan's economic growth came at the cost of some huge spending, which bogged us down until the Clinton team balanced the budget. Perhaps it was what needed to be done, but I think that mark keeps him from being one of the greatest economic presidents ever.

[Guest Vyce]

I just find it absolutely hilarious that Tyler bitched at me in another post for "attacking" someone's ideology, when he openly and unashamedly does so to Mike here.

 

Did I say Mike is jumping in joy at the fact people are dying?

No.

 

And I didn't either.

 

If you had any sense, you'd realize that. But you'd rather misinterpret what I wrote.

 

All I said was that folks like Daschle, and fellow like-minded Dems / liberals, would be a bit non-plussed because many of their criticisms - especially the "Bush failed in diplomacy so American soldiers are going to die" argument - against Bush would be suddenly rendered moot.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The argument was stupid then, and it's still stupid now.

 

Partison bickering doesn't play any role when it comes to people dying. No matter how "sub human" you consider people of another ideology (wrong is a completely different story, mind you), it doesn't mean they wish death upon their countrymen for the sake of being right.

 

That, in itself, is subhuman and absurd.

[Guest Some Guy]

Tyler, where was Mike "jumping for joy"? I'm really curious if he was happy that the war has finally begun and the liberation of the Iraqi people is underway or if he said something like, "thank God those sub-human Iraqis are dying now."

 

Or if he was reffering to Saddam as "sub human". Which would be true.

[Guest Vyce]

The argument was stupid then, and it's still stupid now.

 

Partison bickering doesn't play any role when it comes to people dying. No matter how "sub human" you consider people of another ideology (wrong is a completely different story, mind you), it doesn't mean they wish death upon their countrymen for the sake of being right.

 

That, in itself, is subhuman and absurd.

Again, you put words in my mouth.

 

Never said I think others of a different ideology are "subhuman".

 

[Although I do kind of have an extremely low opinion of individuals such as Daschle. But I wouldn't say they're subhuman......maybe a little inhuman.....]

 

Granted, what I said was insensitive. I admit to that.

 

But I submit that it was no less insensitive than the entire "war for oil" argument which supposes that Bush is willing to sacrifice countless Iraqi lives just to get his hands on Iraq's oil supply. THAT argument is fronted by many people who seem to follow YOUR brand of ideology.

 

Tyler, where was Mike "jumping for joy"?  I'm really curious if he was happy that the war has finally begun and the liberation of the Iraqi people is underway or if he said something like, "thank God those sub-human Iraqis are dying now."

 

Or if he was reffering to Saddam as "sub human".  Which would be true.

 

He was referring to me, in a sense (he's distorted what I originally said into something worse than it was initially).

 

Mike has nothing to do with this.